Ann Coulter's New Book: Godless: The religion of Liberals

[CockySOB]

And other studies estimate it at as much as 10% which would make the number 30 million. I personally doubt it's that high, but I also believe it's higher than 3%. For the sake of argument though, let's say your figure of 9 million is accurate. Out of 9 million, how many have been "cured"?

I posted this text origially in the "King & King" thread. It bears repeating though, especially if it can enlighten you a bit. The only 10% figures have come from the Kinsey studies which are over 50 years old, and sorely deficitent in their methodology. I've shown you mine, now will you show me your figures and sources?

Here's information regarding studies supporting the 1-2% figures for homosexual popluation density in the USA.

Here's information regarding recent (2003) surveys in Canada which support figures lower than the 1-2% figures cites above for homosexual population density. the figures in this survey indicate percentages between 0.7% and 1.5% (0.2% claimed bisexual orientation).

BTW, the variance between the two studies is believed to come from sampling methods used and not from any perceived difference in societal makeup. Specifically, the first study was specifically targetted towards discerning sexual orientation, while the second study only observed sexual orientation among a group of other attributes.

These would constitute a couple of the more prominent studies on sexual orientation in the last 10 years. Kinsey's research comes from well over 50 years ago and exhibits questionable methodology as a matter of relational set theory. The Kinsey group made consistent errors in their approach to determining supersets and subsets based on their survey responses.

 

[MissileMan]

Typical lib argument. The point was that they can be--and some have been
--cured of their addiction, so they were not "made" that way as libs are so found of spouting. I think the answer to your question as to how many have been "cured" rests with whether they really want to be turned around or not.

A typical thumper reply...accuse a person asking a question of being a liberal in order to avoid answering it. Being skeptical of some of the nonsense that you post doesn't make me a liberal, it makes me a skeptic. Since you claim to be one of the enlightened few, shed some light on exactly how successful sexual orientation re-programming actually is. How about some real numbers, like how many people has it been attempted on; of those, how many are now claiming to be fully heterosexual, what kind of recitivism rates have been observed, etc.

 

[Dr Grump]

I posted this text origially in the "King & King" thread. It bears repeating though, especially if it can enlighten you a bit. The only 10% figures have come from the Kinsey studies which are over 50 years old, and sorely deficitent in their methodology. I've shown you mine, now will you show me your figures and sources?

Here's information regarding studies supporting the 1-2% figures for homosexual popluation density in the USA.

Here's information regarding recent (2003) surveys in Canada which support figures lower than the 1-2% figures cites above for homosexual population density. the figures in this survey indicate percentages between 0.7% and 1.5% (0.2% claimed bisexual orientation).

BTW, the variance between the two studies is believed to come from sampling methods used and not from any perceived difference in societal makeup. Specifically, the first study was specifically targetted towards discerning sexual orientation, while the second study only observed sexual orientation among a group of other attributes.

These would constitute a couple of the more prominent studies on sexual orientation in the last 10 years. Kinsey's research comes from well over 50 years ago and exhibits questionable methodology as a matter of relational set theory. The Kinsey group made consistent errors in their approach to determining supersets and subsets based on their survey responses.

Thanks for the info, but you didn't answer his question...

 

[MissileMan]

I posted this text origially in the "King & King" thread. It bears repeating though, especially if it can enlighten you a bit. The only 10% figures have come from the Kinsey studies which are over 50 years old, and sorely deficitent in their methodology. I've shown you mine, now will you show me your figures and sources?

Here's information regarding studies supporting the 1-2% figures for homosexual popluation density in the USA.

Here's information regarding recent (2003) surveys in Canada which support figures lower than the 1-2% figures cites above for homosexual population density. the figures in this survey indicate percentages between 0.7% and 1.5% (0.2% claimed bisexual orientation).

BTW, the variance between the two studies is believed to come from sampling methods used and not from any perceived difference in societal makeup. Specifically, the first study was specifically targetted towards discerning sexual orientation, while the second study only observed sexual orientation among a group of other attributes.

These would constitute a couple of the more prominent studies on sexual orientation in the last 10 years. Kinsey's research comes from well over 50 years ago and exhibits questionable methodology as a matter of relational set theory. The Kinsey group made consistent errors in their approach to determining supersets and subsets based on their survey responses.

Speaking of variance, how about the 3.1% margin of error with a 95% confidence level for this sized survey?

 

[CockySOB]

Thanks for the info, but you didn't answer his question...

My original question to MissileMan takes precedence. I had asked for his sources indicating "tens of millions...." Once my question is answered, I'll entertain answering Mhis questions.

Stay on the sidelines Gump, it's safer for you....

 

[MissileMan]

My original question to MissileMan takes precedence. I had asked for his sources indicating "tens of millions...." Once my question is answered, I'll entertain answering Mhis questions.

Stay on the sidelines Gump, it's safer for you....

I already answered it, and conceded your 9 million figure.

 

[CockySOB]

Speaking of variance, how about the 3.1% margin of error with a 95% confidence level for this sized survey?

Ahem. If you are unable to answer my question as to the sources and citations supporting your original assertion that there are "tens of millions of homosexuals in the USA" then perhaps you should simply back away from your keyboard.

Or are you realizing that your assertion is unsustainable?

 

[CockySOB]

I already answered it, and conceded your 9 million figure.

My apologies then, because I must have overlooked it. It wouldn't be the first time I overlooked an individual post. If you could provide a link to the post you referenced, I'd be appreciative.

And please, disregard the mildly condescending tone of my prior post to you in this thread. Nothing like two people typing at once, eh?

 

[MissileMan]

Ahem. If you are unable to answer my question as to the sources and citations supporting your original assertion that there are "tens of millions of homosexuals in the USA" then perhaps you should simply back away from your keyboard.

Or are you realizing that your assertion is unsustainable?

Your own link, if you figure in the margin of error, allows for the figure to be as high as 15 miliion.

 

[MissileMan]

My apologies then, because I must have overlooked it. It wouldn't be the first time I overlooked an individual post. If you could provide a link to the post you referenced, I'd be appreciative.

And please, disregard the mildly condescending tone of my prior post to you in this thread. Nothing like two people typing at once, eh?

Check out #315

 

[CockySOB]

Check out #315

I see now. I usually associate the term "conceded" to mean that a person has left their former position based on sufficient/superior evidence to move their support in-line with their opposition. I take it you were meaning, "conceded" as in "for the sake of argument."

 

[MissileMan]

I see now. I usually associate the term "conceded" to mean that a person has left their former position based on sufficient/superior evidence to move their support in-line with their opposition. I take it you were meaning, "conceded" as in "for the sake of argument."

Six of one...

 

[Dr Grump]

My original question to MissileMan takes precedence. I had asked for his sources indicating "tens of millions...." Once my question is answered, I'll entertain answering Mhis questions.

Stay on the sidelines Gump, it's safer for you....

Maybe you should stay on the sidelines if you are incapable of reading posts in order. The convo has moved on :rotflmao:

 

[Bullypulpit]

It is YOU who are leaping from one false premise to another by assuming Man has an inherent set of morals. Morality is based on religion. That is fact.

Since most libs stand for destroying whatever moral parameters there are, or replacing them with a lesser value, I'd say in regard to morality, Coulter has y'all pegged pretty-damned good.

No, I did not even imply that humankind has an inherent set of morals. Morality is based upon the observation of social interaction over centuries, and codifying those behaviors which facilitate social stability and cohesiveness. There is no divine entity involved. Religions only serve to reinforce these behaviors with their adherents with promises of divine reward or eternal punishment in some mythical, metaphysical after-life. Religions also served to maintain the power feudal monarchs had over their subjects by the divine right of kings as in the judeo-christian tradition or some form of caste system as in hinduism and some of its variants.

For our morals to be truly human, and humane, they must be rooted in the consequences to this human life...in this world. In that respect, Ms. Coulter, and others, miss the point entirely.

 

[Adam's Apple]

A typical thumper reply...accuse a person asking a question of being a liberal in order to avoid answering it. Being skeptical of some of the nonsense that you post doesn't make me a liberal, it makes me a skeptic. Since you claim to be one of the enlightened few, shed some light on exactly how successful sexual orientation re-programming actually is. How about some real numbers, like how many people has it been attempted on; of those, how many are now claiming to be fully heterosexual, what kind of recitivism rates have been observed, etc.

If you're so interested, do your own research. But I must warn you--you'll have to include some Christian research, and I don't think that would be too appealing to you.

If you've formed the opinion that what I post is nonsense, then don't read my posts. You have charge of the "remote"--just pass over them. I would feel complimented.

 

[MissileMan]

If you're so interested, do your own research. But I must warn you--you'll have to include some Christian research, and I don't think that would be too appealing to you.

If you've formed the opinion that what I post is nonsense, then don't read my posts. You have charge of the "remote"--just pass over them. I would feel complimented.

YOU'RE the one making the claim...back it up. Or is this another case of someone on this board posting the "facts" as they wish they were?

 

[OutsidetheBox24]

This is sooooo much fun for me! Listening to all you morons talk about liberals and their hate for God is "true" entertainment!

Religion (in any form) is a sign of weakness of character. Other than making that pat on the back feel just a little bit better after a loved one dies, religion is useless and actually causes more conflict of interest than good moral support. Sure the "follow the leader" mentality and the feeling of belonging within your community are small benefits of participating in religion, but c'mon people! Sports, the Movies, Culture, Nationalism, Patriotism, etc! What do you people need religion for? Whats the point in spending over half the educational budget for our students on science and math when science and math are seen as enemies to religion?! Its all a bunch of crap and I will laugh everytime some religious whack-tard tries to validate his beliefs. Most religious people dont even know 5% of the history behind their belief systems, and if they did they probably wouldnt want to know the "real" truth anyways.

Another heartless babble from OutsidetheBox...

 

[dilloduck]

This is sooooo much fun for me! Listening to all you morons talk about liberals and their hate for God is "true" entertainment!

Religion (in any form) is a sign of weakness of character. Other than making that pat on the back feel just a little bit better after a loved one dies, religion is useless and actually causes more conflict of interest than good moral support. Sure the "follow the leader" mentality and the feeling of belonging within your community are small benefits of participating in religion, but c'mon people! Sports, the Movies, Culture, Nationalism, Patriotism, etc! What do you people need religion for? Whats the point in spending over half the educational budget for our students on science and math when science and math are seen as enemies to religion?! Its all a bunch of crap and I will laugh everytime some religious whack-tard tries to validate his beliefs. Most religious people dont even know 5% of the history behind their belief systems, and if they did they probably wouldnt want to know the "real" truth anyways.

Another heartless babble from OutsidetheBox...

you call that "outside the box" ? That same sentiment has only been posted about a million times, of creative one !

 

[OutsidetheBox24]

ok guy, just because its not original doesnt mean its wrong! The problem with all you religious freakazoids is that you truly ARE afraid of everything. Your minds are so weak and fragile that you need to constantly remind yourselves that what you believe is OK and the only way. You go so far as trying to force everyone else to believe the same way you do, or atleast get in some sort of trouble for thinking otherwise.

Basically, you are stupid for replying to my post and you are stupid for defending that which is undefendable. RELIGION is the fairly-tale version of government. But wow we have phones and computers now so stupid little fairytales about how to rule people and keep them from slaughtering themselves are unneccessary and childish and just plain self-indulgent. Get over yourselves and the stupid little donkey you rode in on. JESUS is fake, God is fake, hey how about a good ole "Screw God in his ass and cum on his face when we get there!" A-men weaklings.... LMAO

From outsidethebox full of whackos jizzing on themselves in the name of Jesus...

 

[Skull Pilot]

and golf. But they are a bitch to dine with.

that's why I only eat dinner with fellow southpaws